March 19,

1997 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLIII No. 5

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On behalf of all members of the House of Assembly, it gives

me great pleasure to announce the appointment of Mrs. Elizabeth Gallagher RN, as

the new Sergeant-at-Arms. Mrs. Gallagher is seated on the floor of the Assembly

next to the present Sergeant-at-Arms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Mrs. Gallagher will formally assume her

position when our present Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Cyril Kirby, retires on April 1.

During the next two weeks, Mrs. Gallagher will serve as the understudy to Mr.

Kirby.

Mrs. Gallagher began her working career as a registered nurse

and from 1960 to 1973 was the supervisor of the operating rooms at the General

Hospital here in St. John's. After marrying Ray Gallagher and becoming mother to

three children, Mrs. Gallagher had, over a twenty-five year period, extensive

experience in volunteer and charitable organizations. In particular, she served

on the St. Patrick's Mercy Home Board until September 1993. For the past five

years, Mrs. Gallagher has served as the Information Officer in this building and

a tour guide to the House.

In addition to performing her duties as Sergeant-at-Arms,

Mrs. Gallagher will continue to be Information Officer. I might add that Mrs.

Gallagher will be the second female Sergeant-at-Arms in Canada. The first such

appointment was in the Legislature of New Brunswick. On behalf of all members, I

congratulate Mrs. Gallagher on her appointment and we look forward to working

with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on

behalf of this side of the Legislature, on behalf of the government, to

congratulate Mrs. Elizabeth Gallagher on her appointment to this House as a

Sergeant-at-Arms and I am sure that all of us in this Legislature would agree

that she will serve well in the position.

Mr. Speaker, as you said, for the last five years, Mrs.

Gallagher has served as Information Officer in this building and as a tour

guide. Mr. Speaker, I want, at this time, to say that on many occasions when you

walk into this House, if you come in at 1:50, which sometimes I have occasion to

do as a Government House Leader, it is obvious that Mrs. Gallagher in that

position has shown a rare knowledge of this place and a rare feel for it. I am

sure a great many schoolchildren in this Province whom she has had the pleasure

to escort through this place will remember her well as a tour guide, and she

will, as you said, Mr. Speaker, do both jobs and I am convinced that not only

will she do the job of tour guide but also the job of Sergeant-at-Arms as well.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Gallagher will be the first female

Sergeant-at-Arms in this Province and the second, as you said, in Canada, which

in and of itself is a notable milestone for us who govern and for those who take

up occupations at such an honourable place as is this House.

Mr. Kirby will retire at the end of this month, Mr. Speaker,

and I am sure, without getting into any great detail now, that we will get into

some detail on the way in which he served this House. But I would like at this

time, on behalf of this side of the House, to congratulate him on the job that

he has done over the past few years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, on behalf of the Official Opposition, congratulate

Mrs. Gallagher on her appointment. It is certainly a first here in this

Province. I am sure Mrs. Gallagher feels it is quite an honour to be the first

woman appointed as Sergeant-at-Arms in our Province and I am sure she will bring

to her position the same degree of professionalism and the thorough job that she

did as Information Officer and as tour guide here. She has an excellent

reputation for doing a very thorough, a very competent job, and it is certainly

my pleasure to welcome her into this position. I would like to congratulate on

behalf of our caucus, too, Mr. Kirby, who has served well in his role and we

wish him well in his retirement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill- Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with you and the previous two speakers

in congratulating Mrs. Gallagher on her appointment as Sergeant-at-Arms. She

has, as has been noted, served as Information Officer for the House of Assembly

and, on a number of occasions, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I have had

the privilege of joining with her in showing some of my constituents around the

House of Assembly, a group of Cub Scouts from my constituency. Mrs. Gallagher

has a rare knowledge of the operations of this House and of the history of this

place and I am sure that she will bring to the position of Sergeant-at-Arms the

same degree of professionalism, decorum and dignity to our proceedings, as has

her predecessor, Mr. Kirby, whom I am sure we will appropriately honour at the

last day of this sitting.

MR. SHELLEY: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

By leave, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to

extend congratulations to a colleague of ours in this House. The Mokami Status

of Women Council has named Yvonne Jones, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair, as Woman of the Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and

I am sure everybody in the House, I extend congratulations on attaining this

prestigious honour. I understand there were many letters of nominations and

support for Yvonne during the selection process. I had the privilege, by the

way, of submitting a letter by Yvonne's mother, Barbara Rumbolt which appeared

in last week's Labradorian .

I have come to know Yvonne since her election and I must echo

the praise articulated by her mother in saying it is an honour to have her with

us in this people's House. I know Yvonne is a dedicated, hard working and

knowledgeable individual who cares deeply for her constituents in Labrador and

in the Province as a whole. It is my pleasure to rise today and recognize her

achievements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise on behalf of the government to congratulate

Yvonne on her award. I have known Yvonne for a number of years in different

capacities, in serving as the Mayor of Mary's Harbour when I was working with

government, and I certainly think we do well in congratulating her. She is fully

deserving of such an aware. She has worked really hard and, I think, we

certainly have, over the weekend in Labrador, celebrated with her at the most

appropriate occasion of the Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, it is very fitting when we see a lady of

Yvonne's stature win awards like this and I think it shows well that we have

come a long way in terms of being able to recognize the efforts of people like

Yvonne, so I say on behalf of government, congratulations to Yvonne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay and the Minister of Government Services and Lands in congratulating Yvonne

Jones, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, on being recognized as an

outstanding woman of Labrador by the Mokami Status of Women Council. We all

know, of course, that she achieved her election against great odds, and showed

an example I think for women throughout the Province that despite the electoral

system, which often is stacked against women as candidates, that she has been

able to overcome those odds, and in the House of Assembly show herself to be a

determined and effective member, a representative of her people, and she

deserves the honour that she has received today.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure

for me today to announce the approval of $70,000 for the research, development

and design of a training program for foster families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In our Province there are approximately

500 foster families caring for 750 children and youth who are in the care of the

Director of Child Welfare. Many of these children have diverse personal,

emotional, and behavioural needs having experienced severe neglect and/or sexual

or physical abuse before entering care. When foster families accept these

children into their homes they are presented with many challenges. Securing

appropriate placement is often quite difficult.

Although the Department of Social Services and the Foster

Families Association have identified the need for foster parent education for

several years, there is little training available. In light of research and

developments regarding the foster parents role in family preservation and

reunification as a strategy to further the best interests of the child, training

requirements cannot be ignored. In today's environment caring is not enough.

Knowledge and skill are required.

We recognise more and more that foster families must have

special knowledge and skills to meet the complex needs of the children placed in

their homes. This is recognized as important to ensure better stability for

children and youth in care and a higher level of satisfaction for the foster

parents.

In order to research, develop standards and design a high

quality training program for foster parents we plan to contract with a qualified

person who will work with an advisory committee composed of many staff from my

department, representatives of the Foster Families Association, birth parents,

Youth in Care, and other persons in the community in the field of children's

services.

Investing in foster parents through foster parent education

is an important component of the delivery of responsible, adequate and effective

child and family services. My department is pleased to be able to initiate this

project at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and say that this is a good

beginning. It is not going to fix the problem; nor will it address the great

need there is for training.

I am reminded of a presentation made last year to the Select

Committee on Children's Interests, and I would like to read from that

presentation just for one moment, one paragraph. It reads: In the administration

of foster care, a system by the Child Welfare Division, Department of Social

Services, foster families are often neglected. Conversations with foster parents

will reveal a sense of despair, inadequacy, powerlessness, frustration and

insecurity. The foster family is often treated as a non-entity in the assessment

of plans for the foster child and children in their care.

Mr. Speaker, last year we identified the need for adequate

training for foster care parents. I am pleased to see the beginning made here

today, and I welcome the commitment as well to the intensive family preservation

strategies, because we have to try to preserve the family structure the best way

that we can, and by that we mean that we have to put additional funds in that

direction as well.

Mr. Speaker, foster parents talk about too many turnovers in

the front-line social workers as well. They talked about the need to see youth,

ages sixteen to eighteen, included in the child welfare legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: There is much to be done; however, we

recognize that this today is a beginning, albeit only just that.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to welcome this contribution for research and

development of a training program for foster families. We have some excellent

foster parents in families but, to be frank, the history of foster parenting in

this Province leaves a lot to be desired in many, many cases, and anything that

can help in providing training to people from the department is a very positive

step.

It is a modest step, I will acknowledge, and it seems that

the minister has, two days in a row, given us some modest good news. I am a

little afraid of what we might hear tomorrow. They may have run out of good news

by the time the Minister of Finance gets up to speak tomorrow, and we may be in

for some bad news after all of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are on health. I had intended them for the Premier, but I will ask them of the

acting Premier.

I spoke with a fifty-five year old man yesterday who is

waiting almost a full year for cardiac bypass surgery. This man is a long-term

worker with the provincial government. His sick benefits from his employment

have run out, his sick benefits have run out from EI. After his illness last

year he went through a process and received Canada Pension disability. This

government has told him he cannot receive provincial disability pension because

he has not exhausted all medical avenues and he must have a bypass operation

first. So, Mr. Speaker, people in this Province are dying while waiting for

surgery. We just heard a case in the news a couple of days ago about a case a

couple of months ago in St. Lawrence, and there have been many others. I would

ask the Premier, or the acting Premier, if he thinks it is acceptable to wait

for months and even years for life-saving cardiac surgery.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the House that

the Minister of Health is in Central Newfoundland today releasing the

consultancy report dealing with Central Newfoundland. The acting Minister of

Health is the Minister of Social Services, and we will ask that she respond.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it has

been quite clearly stated by my colleague the Minister of Health that we are

also concerned about the waiting periods that have been obviously identified

over the last number of days, and even the last number of years. I think this

government has been trying to deal with a problem that is certainly increasing.

We know last year in April this government approved an extra $1.5 million for

cardiac surgery. We have actually moved to increase staff, increase allocation

of beds, expand our intensive care unit, and also establish an intermediate care

unit.

I would like to say that we are quite concerned about these

issues, and we would certainly express our sincere sympathy to the families. I

think that the Health Care Corporation today has come forward and identified as

well initiatives that will begin to address this problem. We have increased the

average number of surgeries from nine and a half to ten a week. In 1998 they

hope to increase the number of surgeries to twelve per week. I think that as

cardiac surgeons must do, they must allocate the level of urgency that is

required. I know waiting periods are very frustrating for people. We understand

their concern, but this government is recognizing the need. The Health Care

Corporation has come out and identified it as an issue that it is going to

continue to address. Yes, we are concerned, and we will work with the

Corporation on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has

done nothing to reduce the waiting list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is longer now than when I first raised

this three and a half years ago. There are more people on the waiting list, I

say to the minister. Calls come into my office on a daily basis from people who

are frustrated and despondent over the declining state of health care here in

our Province. There aren't ten surgeries being done every week -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I spoke with officials -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In emergency room

departments elderly people are being put on stretchers for up to two days at a

time. I ask the minister if the minister thinks it is acceptable to have an

eighty-three year old woman with a broken hip on a narrow stretcher in an

emergency department for up to two days without food or drink before finally

deciding to do surgery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

refer to the first part of the statement that was made before I get to the last

part of the question.

I would like to say that in any case where any person is

awaiting cardiac surgery the issue of waiting for an I.C.U. bed is the same in

1978 and 1980 when I was an intensive care nurse than it is now. If there are no

beds available in I.C.U, that is certainly a factor that was considered then and

must be considered now. Even with the expansion of the intensive care beds,

physicians still have to make sure an intensive care bed is available, and right

now I know they are in a 100 per cent capacity. That hasn't changed. There are

periods of time when the I.C.U. is not at full capacity. There are times when it

is full. That situation will not change and has to be considered and factored

in.

In terms of the concern that he raised with an elderly

person, the Health Care Corporation is trying to deal with this issue by trying

to move the people through the system. I think that those concerns that you

raise are concerns to us as well. Sister Elizabeth has come out and tried to

address the issue by moving people along in the system as quickly as possible

and giving them the best care and the best quality that is possible within

reason and I think that's the aim of the system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that's nonsense. I heard the Health Care Corporation

official indicate that they are isolated incidents. Well I had seven incidents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. This is not a time for

debate. I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Emergency room staff has been stretched to

the limit due to cutbacks by this government. Now a man was badly injured at

sea, flown by a helicopter to the Health Sciences. There was no surgeon

available that day. He had to wait until the next day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, the swelling had

increased so much by the next day they could not operate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member must get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that this man spent

several weeks in hospital because there was no surgeon available and no medical

attention and in light of the fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary

and that there ought to be no

preamble on a supplementary question. He should

get to his question immediately.

MR. SULLIVAN: Since the Premier is a major part of the

cutbacks under Canada Health and Social Transfer, I ask the minister now, when

is this government going to provide sufficient funds so they can properly care

for the sick in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to state that this is not the place

to discuss an individual case across the floor of the House. I have to say this,

Mr. Speaker, if you have an individual case that you want to come over and

report to myself or to my colleague when he returns, we will be happy to deal

with it but without having the access to a person's chart and knowing all the

details, I think it is quite unfair and unreasonable to expect a response based

on the individual assessment of the patient.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak about

policy, procedure and budgets but I think the individual issues and personal

cases of individuals should not be brought across the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that last year in our

budget we put forward a stable budget -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her answer quickly please.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly do that. This government put forward a

stable budget for health care. It was identified as $903 million and, Mr.

Speaker, we are committed to providing quality health care in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a shame when people can't get help from the system and

have to turn to an Opposition. I say it is downright disgraceful!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Another man I spoke of recently was told

that he would have to have bypass surgery done within six months. Nine months

later no surgery was done. Now how would the minister feel -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he's on a

supplementary.

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman

opposite has every right to put a question. He has every right to put a question

and to be ordered to do so in a manner that is appropriate to the Speaker but I

say to him that he has no right to disobey the rulings of the Chair on four

separate occasions as he did in the last supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this that if the hon.

gentleman continues I would ask the Speaker to name him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, again I remind hon. members that

during Question Period, one is that we should remember that

preambles are not

permitted on supplementary questions and secondly, if there are points of order

to be raised on Question Period they should be reserved to the end of Question

Period.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was into my question when I was interrupted by the

Government House Leader.

I ask the minister now, how would the minister feel if you

were still on a waiting list for lifesaving surgery, months after you were told

that you need it? Now do you feel the government is providing adequate care to

those that are in need?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member's question is out of order. He is

asking for an opinion from an hon. member and I think questions ought not to

reflect opinions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually asked two questions there. I will ask the minister

again: Does she feel the government is providing on an adequate level for those

people who are waiting for life-saving surgery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the physicians, the nurses

and the staff in the health care system. I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that

they are able to diagnose and assess their patients and triage them in such a

way that clients are determined to be urgent or elective.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the budget $1.5 billion

last year for this specific area of cardiac surgery. I think, Mr. Speaker, the

fact that our health care system is providing more varied services, treatments,

drug interventions, means that more and more people are requiring surgery

because they are living longer and they are able to sustain the treatments that

they have been given.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have said we would like to

improve the system. We are working with the health care system to do this and,

yes, I am convinced that we are doing the best we can at this time and we will

try to improve in areas that have been pointed out to us.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

The Newfoundland Dietetic Association released a report

yesterday which indicates the results of their research, is that it costs a

family of four, 85 per cent of their basic social assistance in order to provide

a nutritious diet for their family.

I want to ask the minister whether she believes that this

policy of the government of only providing a bare minimum of money for social

assistance is adequate, or is it the case that this government has it as part of

its policy, that people who are poor or on social assistance should get their

meals from food banks in order to be able to survive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We spend over $250 million on income support in this Province

every year, Mr. Speaker, and I have said it time and time again, I wish that we

could increase the money that is going out to social assistance 200 per cent. I

would like nothing more than to be able to do that; but this year, we held the

line on maintaining social assistance basic rates and I would remind my hon.

colleague that in working through the National Child Benefit, in having access

to approximately $12 million of new money, we hope to begin to address through

programs and services, issues such as child poverty and other day care and child

care issues. And I think it is one very good way of trying to address some of

the issues and focusing on this type of program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill- Quidi

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister and all hon. members know there has been no

increase in rates since 1989 and almost 20 per cent of the value of social

assistance payments has been lost through inflation. What steps are the minister

and her government taking to increase the ability of people on social assistance

to be able to live properly and to be able to provide adequately for their

families?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never at any point said it was easy for people on social

assistance. I know it is a last resort program. It is $250 million that this

Province has chosen to put forward on programs. We did not reduce basic social

assistance and, yes, Mr. Speaker, we would love to increase it but, we have

choices to make, difficult choices. We are trying to do other things like

private-public partnering with respect to school lunch programs. We have access

to new money coming down the system, which no one on that side of the House

seems to see as a valuable resource in trying to address some of the problems.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we do, and we will work to try to develop new

programs and services to address these needs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier, the Acting Premier or the

Minister of Health, Acting Minister of Health, whoever cares to answer the

question on health, Mr. Speaker.

Our waiting lists for cardiac surgery have been increasing

and line-ups have been increasing at emergency departments as cuts are made to

staff.

Now, I ask the minister: When is the minister going to see

the light and put the dollars back into health care and emergency services so

that people can get a service that they justly need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in answer to the previous question, we have

maintained the line on health care funding in the Province. We recognize that

this funding has been stable. The Health Care Corporation is aware of that, and

they are working with the budget allocations that they have.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

The minister said yesterday that she has been consulting with

people for one year on the privatization of parks; yet we cannot find anyone,

and the people packing public meetings cannot find anyone, and people in your

District of Gander cannot find anyone with whom you have been consulting. I ask

the minister, can she tell the people here now, who she has been consulting over

this past year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, throughout the year, this

government has consulted through the pre-Budget consultation process.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not in the Budget.

MS KELLY: We have also done surveys all through our parks

system. All of our park users have been surveyed throughout the year. We have

consulted extensively.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a

supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Education, and the former minister who

started the privatization ball rolling, said in debate yesterday that this is

phase two in the grand privatization scheme of the Strategic Economic Plan set

out by the Economic Recovery Commission. We pay the Economic Recovery Commission

$25 million to develop the policy procedures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

`The approach that I have seen government taking so far is

contrary to the principles in this report rather than in accord' -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: - says Doug House, Chairman of the Economic

Recovery Commission.

I ask the minister: What has the minister to say now that the

author of the government's privatization plan says what you are doing is

completely contrary to the plan itself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member to

repeat his question, because there was one word I did not understand in your

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS KELLY: I could not understand it; I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it slow, `Jack'.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will take it slow.

What has the minister to say now? For the author of the

government's privatization policy says: The government's careless,

consultationless approach is absolutely the wrong approach and contrary to the

plan itself - Doug House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now understand the

question. I was not sure if you were saying `author' or `audit'.

Mr. Speaker, program review -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.

House that the ERC, and the past chairman of this, has not been working with us

through the program review process. This decision comes out of the program

review process and it is wholly supported by government.

We have had more than 450 responses to our request for

proposals. There is a very high level of interest in this proposal, and I am

very confident that our parks will be successfully privatized, will be very well

run by the private sector either through municipalities, tourism associations,

employees, or the private sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The program review that you referred to advised against the

very thing that you are doing. Your Cabinet colleague yesterday stated that you

are using -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now making a statement. He is on a

supplementary question. Let us get to the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will ask the question.

Minister, will you not admit there is no master plan, and the

only reason the parks are on the chopping block at the eleventh hour, before

they are due to open, before the busiest season ever, is to basically fill holes

in this year's Budget and to basically -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is basically to put a bit more money

into the Budget this year and basically a cash grab, just as a cash grab was

there last year with the converting of the leases to grants. It is a cash grab

and no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Would the minister comment on that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the

question by saying that this government is responsible enough to make choices.

We have all been listening to questions in this Question Period today about

health care and social programs. We all know that the people of this Province

have very clearly said that health care, education, and social programs are a

priority. Parks are a priority, also. We have a good core park system. We have

two national parks in our Province. We will have three keystone parks and ten

camping parks, as well as many, many - the twenty-one plus, the numbers that are

already there of private camp grounds that will be very well operated by our

private sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete her answer.

MS KELLY: I am totally appalled by the fact that members

opposite do not have the confidence in the private sector people of this

Province that we will have good, private sector run parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question this afternoon is for the

Attorney General. Preparations are clearly being made for the closure of

correctional facilities at Salmonier and Bishop's Falls. We recall the courts

rake the minister over the coals for using temporary absences as a way of

responding to the shortage of space in our penitentiaries for people convicted

of crimes.

My question to the Attorney General is: how is the closure of

correctional facilities going to do anything but worsen the already critical

shortage of incarceration space in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if the lord tarries another

twenty-three and one half hours the Minister of Finance will rise in his place

and he will present to this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

the Budget for the coming year, and at that time all things will be revealed. I

ask the hon. member to try and keep his patience for another twenty-three and

one half hours.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of this

Province Appeals Division rule that the minister's reckless use of TAs amounted

to contempt of court since people that a judge ruled should be incarcerated

would be let right back out on the street by the minister, sometimes the very

next day or that very day. Will the minister acknowledge that persons denied

light sentences and sent to prison by a judge for crimes such as impaired

driving have been serving little or no time, and have been receiving no remedial

treatment, and that there will now be even less space to take these individuals

off the streets. What kind of message, I ask the Attorney General, does this

send to people that our society does not tolerate for such serious crimes as for

example a second charge for impaired driving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: An awful lot of words, Mr. Speaker, for the

same question. I tell the hon. member to be patient. Well, actually it is less

than twenty-three and a half hours now, it is only about twenty-three hours and

twenty minutes, then all things will be revealed and the hon. member will be

able, then, to come forward with his question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. John's East on a

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the Attorney General if he will

acknowledge that once again, as with his abuse of temporary absences, he is

charging full steam ahead with significant decisions of tremendous consequence

for our justice system in the absence of any rationale or plan? And will he also

acknowledge that his decisions are not only showing contempt for the fine

workers at these institutions, but also show complete disregard for the

significance of incarceration and a total lack of understanding of many of the

principles of sentencing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in our

temporary absence program. We have one of the most progressive temporary absence

programs in all of Canada. At this very minute there are probably thirty people

out on electronic monitoring. Every single one of these people is involved in a

rehabilitative program.

A short while ago I met with a group of people who told me

that one individual had been incarcerated nine times for impaired driving. This

was supposed to prove to me that you should lock people up and throw away the

key. It told me though, Mr. Speaker, that incarceration did not work for this

individual. Maybe it is time, and not only in Newfoundland but across the

country, we are beginning to recognize that in a humane society we have to put

stress on rehabilitation. The corrections are meant to correct. The temporary

absence rehabilitative program we have developed in this Province is second to

none in the country, and the country itself is making major strides. I am very

proud of the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - in Corrections who are doing such an

excellent job, Mr. Speaker, and I take great pride in boasting and bragging

about the great steps that have been taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the

Attorney General in response to that answer, that same individual, the person

who was convicted nine times for impaired driving, in addition to the

remediation which that man needs, and the help that that man needs, doesn't the

Attorney General think that that man should be off the streets of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, he certainly should not be

driving. But to throw that man in prison again as was done for nine times does

not work. That man has to be rehabilitated. The man obviously has a sickness.

Therefore I believe the way we are dealing with that individual is the proper,

correct way to do it, not like some bunch of dinosaurs who would lock them up as

was done in the Middle Ages, throw away the key, throw their families in with

them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: This is a concept we have over here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to -

MR. DECKER: - and I hope to God that that kind of

mentality never gets in a position of authority -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. DECKER: - in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My

questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy while he is still here,

so I figured I would get a couple of questions to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows - I'm

going to raise his profile a little bit now. What I say, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is

this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Of course,

(inaudible) Voisey's Bay continues to be our bright spot, and we talk about

nickel so often, but the minister knows I've asked him many questions concerning

the copper and the potential for that. For three straight weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: Coppertop.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, the coppertop. Still going! For three

straight weeks, Mr. Speaker, I asked questions on the viability of a copper

smelter. Of course it was said no, and actually laughed at in this House for

three weeks. Something has changed since then. I would like to ask the minister

the first question. When he got his first advice on saying no, did it come from

his own department or did it come from Inco?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member

for his question. I hope to get a few more questions before the session closes.

I've been waiting a long time for this one. I thought it would never come.

Voisey's Bay is a great development for this Province, and

since it was discovered two years ago it has moved along very nicely. We in our

department continue to do assessments. We work with the people in the Department

of Finance as they assess all aspects of taxation, we work with people in the

Department of Industry, Trade and Technology as they assess all aspects of

industrial benefits to this project, and it is moving along nicely. Nickel of

course is the main thing that is there. Sure there is copper, sure there is

cobalt, and I'm sure as we refine the products there will be other minor

components as well that will add to it. Right now the environmental assessment

process is ongoing both for Argentia as well as for the Voisey's Bay mine and

mill. In our department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly,

please.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, I will answer as quickly as possible. I

know that time is about running out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask -

DR. GIBBONS: In my own department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - we are continuing our assessment of all

the components of this development, we are continuing our assessment of the

copper, and in answer to his question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - I don't take my directions from Inco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

DR. GIBBONS: - I take it based on what we learn

ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, time for

one quick supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first thing we have to do is

get a definition of order and send it to the other side of the House. I had a

second and third, so I will go into my third question as we are running out of

time here. As we sit here, March 19, 1997, with the legislation that is in this

House, there is a ten-year tax break to Inco and Voisey's Bay.

When does the minister expect to not pay lip service but put

it on the books in this House as the law, and the legislation be changed so we

get our full share out of Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, to me it is as if time had

stood still, because it is as if it does not matter whether this is a question

from Sue on Open Line at VOCM during the morning, or Sue on Open Line with

George MacLaren in the evening, or in this House of Assembly the last time we

sat. The question is the same; the answer is the same. There is no ten-year tax

break for Inco. Inco was told a year ago that there was no ten-year tax break

for Inco. There will never be a ten-year tax break for Inco - never!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to - I am sure the Speaker will

look into it. The question was asked from the Member for Baie Verte, the critic

for Mines and Energy, not to sue any other names that you (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an interim report on behalf of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: There is an interim report, Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance.

The Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance have

had public hearings around the Province. One of the major concerns identified at

the hearings on the Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas was the fact that they are

included in rating Territory 1. The committee has reviewed the particular

problems associated with the rating territories and at first talked about

establishing an extra territory in the area. However, upon reviewing new

evidence pertaining to this particular matter, the committee decided, on a

motion by Perry Canning, the Member for Labrador West, seconded by Anthony

Sparrow, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, that the boundary of Territory 1

be east of Highway 210; that the other parts of existing Territory 1, comprising

the Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas, including Goobies, be included in existing

Territory 2 and that the rate in Territory 3, consisting of the Labrador portion

of the Province remain the same. The decision of the committee, Mr. Speaker, was

unanimous.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

Newfoundlanders who are petitioning this House of Assembly to direct the

government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every

school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our

children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of petitions that have

been brought to this House by people who are very seriously concerned about the

state of child hunger in this Province and the need for schoolchildren to have

access to a proper nutritional compliment in order to be able to learn properly

in school.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there are those who believe that a

charity-based model ought to be the one that is put in force across this

Province and that where communities want to provide charitable food donations to

schoolchildren, they can do so. There are some, Mr. Speaker, who even talk about

the deserving poor as opposed to the undeserving poor. I do not know, Mr.

Speaker, where all that comes from but I do know that what is necessary in this

Province is a program that ensures that each and every schoolchild is able to

learn effectively in school.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are saving through changes in the school

system - through school reform, through changes in school busing, through school

consolidation, through a reduction in the number of teachers because the number

of schoolchildren has diminished. We are saving many millions of dollars. In

fact, the former Minister of Education said that we would save $8 million alone

in school busing as a result of changes in the education system brought about by

Term 17. Now, Mr. Speaker, some of that money ought to go to establish a program

that ensures that our schools, like other countries, provide meals for children

so that they can participate fully in school activities and learn properly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of studies done, a

number of studies referred to in the Committee on Special Interests reported by

Dr. Patricia Canning last Fall, indicating that this is a serious problem in

this Province.

We do know, from facts revealed by the Newfoundland Dietetic

Association yesterday - which I referred to in Question Period - that the

ability of families on social assistance to provide adequate nutritious food for

their families is impossible. It is beyond their means, beyond the ability of

people on social assistance to provide sufficient food for their families

without using up all of the money or practically all of the money that they

have. Obviously, there are other needs over and above food that must be met -

for clothing, for housing, for fuel, for other amenities that are required to

properly live in this Province.

The figure that I used, Mr. Speaker, was for the city of St.

John's. The cost in the City of St. John's to feed a family of four is 85 per

cent of the basic social assistance. If you go outside St. John's, you go to

rural Newfoundland, to Labrador, to areas where the transportation costs are

higher, where the selection is less, where the economies of scale are fewer,

than the cost is more prohibiting. So, Mr. Speaker, the need is fairly obvious.

There is an opportunity here for some of the education dollars to be transferred

over to help communities and help schools provide a school lunch program. We

cannot rely on the charity-based model to produce a comprehensive program; it

might be alright for a place which has lots of resources, lots of service

groups, but what about a place, Mr. Speaker, that does not have any of those

things, that does not have the social infrastructure, does not have the ability

to produce such a program?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education to speak to this

issue and advise whether or not he is prepared to redirect some of the money

that he is taking out of school/teacher allotment, out of school costs, out of

the school busing program. Is he prepared to allot some of that money to a

universal, comprehensive school program that is going to give the school

children in this Province a better chance at benefiting from the education

system they so desperately need in order to get themselves out of the situation

that they find themselves in and have an opportunity to more fully participate

in the benefits of the society that we are part of, Mr. Speaker? We are living

in a very wealthy country. There is no reason for our schoolchildren to be

hungry when they are trying to learn.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased again today to rise and support the petition put

forward by my colleague, the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, we know in this Province that poverty is a real,

a significant and a prevailing problem that is faced by many, many families. We

know that 20 per cent of all families in Newfoundland and Labrador live below

the poverty line. We know that there are 40,000-plus children who go to school

hungry every day. We know from studies that were done in the early 1990s by the

Department of Health, studies done by the Department of Education, studies that

are reflected in the Williams Royal Commission Report, studies that have been

done by the group who conducted the study here for the Children's Interest

Committee, studies done by Dr. Patricia Canning and many, many other studies

that show that child poverty is a prevailing problem that is inhibiting young

children from getting the kind of education and the kinds of life skills that

they need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to stop paying lip service to this.

We have to look at our vulnerable populations. When we look at vulnerability,

there is no person in our community as vulnerable as a child. A child is the

most vulnerable person and a child cannot help it if he goes to the fridge and

there is nothing there. Mr. Speaker, just in the last few days I have had to

call upon the St. Vincent de Paul Society in my district to assist a family. Mr.

Speaker, we see it in our districts every single day, and the teachers see it in

their schools every single day, and parents who cannot provide for their

children - they know what the pain is when they have to look at their child and

say: no, you cannot have this or we cannot afford that particular item that the

child might want.

Mr. Speaker, we know that child poverty is the one thing that

is going to hold children back. Many children start school at age five and they

are already significantly disadvantaged. Many children who start school at age

five will spend years trying to catch up to other children because they have not

had proper nutrition in their early childhood. That is all researched, it is

self-evident and, what are we going to do about it? We have to look at some

aggressive measures and while we compliment the government for putting more

money into the school lunch program a little while ago, in reality this was just

a tidbit, it was just a nucleus, just a beginning, just a core of what is needed

to be done.

So until we can say we are going to have a comprehensive

program that really is pro-active, starts at a very early age, and starts in

some cases right at infancy, then we have to say that we in this Province are

not doing what we should be doing, and the children of this Province will not

have an effective voice in this Legislature until we, all of us together, stand

up and say that we are not going to put up with child poverty anymore.

Mr. Speaker, we know the goals are there; but putting

$150,000 a year into a school lunch program is not sufficient. It is just a

little, tiny bit, it gives a signal. It pretends to be concerned, but in reality

it does not address the issue in a comprehensive manner at all.

I agree with my colleague when he spoke, saying with respect

to young children in his district, and in all the other districts here, if we do

not address the issue then we are going to fall behind in this Province, in this

Country, in terms of where our children are going to be going, in terms of the

new and increased need for higher levels of education, because already we have

systematically institutionalized and we have, by our actions, said it is okay to

have child poverty as a feature of our society.

It is not okay. It never was okay. Therefore, until we can

have a government that says we are going to do something aggressive about it in

a pro-active manner, in an interventionist manner, in a manner which starts in

early childhood, then we are not really going to address the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to take his seat.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: It is 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, Private Members'

Day, and I believe the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is

debated today.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to speak on the private member's

resolution asking this government to do what Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have

done as a result of harmonization. We have been the only Province that joined

this agreement that has transferred the burden from the rich to the poor.

Now, as a result of harmonization, this Province has given up

$155 million in tax revenue that we were getting into our coffers. The Finance

Minister, in questions I asked in the House of Assembly on new tax measures they

are going to bring in, indicated we will get $90 million extra. Under the

current system there is a $245 million difference, so we are going to be out the

difference. The minister has not explained why there was only $105 million

difference as opposed to $155 million that the numbers add up to.

Maybe we will see this $50 million difference announced in

some new tax measures tomorrow - that is a possibility - or new fees and

licences like last year when they told us there were no tax increases but we

ended up with tens of millions of dollars in new licences and fees.

Now, the burden has been shifted from essentials. I guess

everybody who receives it is a customer of Newfoundland Power - the Harmonized

Sales Tax increases the cost of electricity. People are now just starting to

feel the effects. The same government that fought tooth and nail, at hundreds of

thousands of dollars - I do not know but a quarter of a million dollars -

against an increase in electricity to the people of this Province, turn around

and increase it by 8 per cent; that more than doubles the taxes.

If you are going to harmonize tax and have a single, common

tax base, that is good. I do not have a problem with that. That is not the

concern that people have. I did have a big problem with the tax-inclusive

pricing, and that was solved. I spoke in the House. The Minister of Finance was

the only person who did a presentation that agreed with it, the only one in this

Province - only one in Nova Scotia and one in New Brunswick, and they were the

Finance Ministers. Nobody else agrees, not even businesses, not even private

citizens of the Province.

Now, we have transferred onto the poor in this Province the

burden from a Harmonized Sales Tax that is supposed to come into effect on April

1. If it is a policy of government to give up $155 million in revenues and

re-allocate that into the social sector, whether it be on low-income families or

in health care, or to serve some social function, that can be looked upon as a

policy of government, to shift the resources for a social purpose. But that did

not happen. Along with forfeiting $155 million in revenues, they shifted the

burden onto the poor, the people on fixed incomes, the working poor of the

Province, seniors on fixed incomes, on students, on young people trying to build

homes, and on the people who need that money the most. That is where the burden

shifted. If you want to go out and buy a car, you will be money in - the big

ticket items. The common family out there today that is struggling to make ends

meet cannot afford to go out on a regular basis and buy an automobile and spend

money on various other such items.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bar of soap.

MR. SULLIVAN: We would need more than a bar of soap, I

say to the minister. To clean up this government's act, we would need a lot more

than a bar of soap. When we are looking at a bar of soap compared to what you

pay on your light bill, there is a big difference, compared on children's

clothing, I say to the minister. What will happen to a bar of soap? I can tell

you, it will not disappear very fast at the price of a bar of soap, I say to the

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What happens to them? They should go to 15

per cent, I guess. They should. What about the price of children's clothing, I

ask the member? I would say to the associate finance minister, what about

children's clothing? Or is he the finance minister? He is the only spokesperson

in this House on finance; he must be the finance minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Junior finance minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, junior finance minister. He is being

groomed for the job, I would say.

Now, who is going to benefit and who is going to be hurt?

People who can afford the big ticket items are going to benefit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education who taught in the

classrooms of this Province and saw many individuals come to school every day

who could not even afford to buy a lunch, who could not afford to buy decent

clothing, the person who should have a social conscience, is now a member of the

Cabinet that is bringing in - and crucifying people on low incomes.

I am calling on government tomorrow in the Budget to make an

announcement that they are going to do like Savage, when his life is on the line

in Nova Scotia - McKenna's life is not on the line in New Brunswick. Premier

McKenna saw the need to shift; he saw the need to refund and rebate back to

low-income people. This Province has not done it.

Let us look at who is going to benefit. Are seniors going to

benefit, on fixed incomes? No, because seniors spend a fair portion of their

income on basic necessities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have told the minister who is going to

benefit. I have already stated that, I say to the minister. The minister needs

another wake-up call. Those, like the minister, who get big salaries, who can

buy the big ticket items, golf clubs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will benefit from it. I find that

resentful. I want to contribute more. I think the balance should be different.

In fact, members of our caucus feel that it is unfair to shift the burden from

the rich to the poor. I say it is wrong to shift it from politicians, from

Cabinet ministers, and from members here in this House, and put it on people who

can barely put food on the table. That is wrong. Savage did not agree with it in

Nova Scotia, McKenna did not agree with it. They did something about it. This is

the only province that did not.

People wanting to start a new home, young people who want to

get into a new home, people with young kids, they are going to pay a bigger

price. They are going to pay it on building materials and the overall cost of a

home. The cost of a house is going to increase by 4 per cent to 5 per cent. The

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board refutes all the evidence, he refutes all

the information. He was the only one out of hundreds of submissions - I went

through submissions to the House of Commons committee. I read statements to the

Senate. Every single person who made a submission on the tax-inclusive, except

our minister, thought it was bad. This Province does not see it. They know the

situation. They are just crucifying the people in this Province who cannot

afford to pay the price.

There are many people, young kids today - and many parents

are struggling to be able to enrol their kids into recreation programs, into

sports programs, into hockey programs. They will go to their arena on April 1

and there is an extra 8 per cent tax on ice rentals. That extra 8 per cent comes

out of the pockets of parents who cannot afford it. The rental goes up on an

arena. You took away a $10,000 subsidy to arenas, and now the kids who avail of

recreation programs are going to pay the price. The young families trying to get

a start here in this Province wind up being discriminated against by government

policy. It is they who are being affected by it.

I indicated it is not the money, that $155 million you are

giving up. If you did not harmonize you would have $155 million more dollars, I

say to the minister. Does the minister realize bad fiscal policy to satisfy the

Prime Minister and the only two other Liberal governments left in this country?

And they are disappearing by the month, I say to the minister. There is only

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick left, and Newfoundland. Nova Scotia will be

disappearing within the next year - running like a scared rabbit in Nova Scotia.

We will soon find out. Prince Edward Island with a Liberal premier and an

election coming, would not harmonize its tax. To give the impression that it is

gone when it is just hidden is basically what happened.

Now, who else is going to benefit? When you can go out and

get a fur coat cheaper, and you go out and buy children's clothing and pay more.

When you put taxes on children's clothing, and double the taxes on children's

clothing, and give a break of 25 per cent on the fur coat, there is something

radically wrong with our fiscal policy and with taxation here in this Province.

There is something dramatically wrong with it when on a $10,000 fur coat, you

can get a reduction of $500, and a young kid's clothing, you put a tax on it and

increase it, and double the taxation. It does not make sense.

This government has to come to its senses in dealing with the

problems. You pick up your light bill, and during the phase-in period, the taxes

there, you would almost want to be an accountant to decipher it. Come April 1

there will be - there are many low-income people in this Province who turn off

the heat in the nighttime, they stay in the kitchen area with a wood stove, and

they live in very cold houses; because they are on fixed incomes and they are

seeing them being eroded. Thank God the inflation level is low. If not we would

have a major problem. They are going to bed cold. There are children going to

school hungry, there are children going to school without the clothing they need

because they cannot afford it.

There needs to be a system whereby there is going to be a

reallocation. That is all I am asking for in a private member's resolution here,

quite simply: "that this Honourable House urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to enact a provincial annual income supplement program...." I am

not specifying the amounts, just that they look at where the burden has been

shifted onto those items, essential items; not optional items, I say to the hon.

members. Not onto optional items, they are onto essential items. There should be

some type of program to alleviate that burden.

Maybe the minister does not know what it is like to want or

to be in need. Maybe he does not realize it. I deal with constituents on an

annual basis, I know of many people out there who cannot afford to go and buy

food for their kids. They are realities. If the minister does not know what I am

for by now in this House, he has not been doing a very good job of listening.

Because I have stated unequivocally, very clearly, what I stand for on any

particular issue. I do not sit on a fence and beat around the bush. I agree with

a single common tax base, one tax collector.

Here, this Province agrees to harmonize tax, when Prince

Edward Island did not go in on the tax, and they got all the harmonized jobs in

Prince Edward Island! The province that did not participate got the jobs - and

our penalty. We have only half as many workers per capita in the federal public

service in this Province as in the rest of Canada, and we (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do my own reading and do much of my own

research, I say to the minister, very much so. I just wish the government would

do a little bit of their own research.

Mr. Speaker, every single person out there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Can we have protection from that motor

mouth across the House, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did `Clyde' tell you what to say?

MR. SHELLEY: Do you support the GST?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could we have protection from that motor

mouth, Mr. Speaker, that motor mouth across the House? The master of hypocrisy,

the person who wept on the steps of Confederation Building for the poor teachers

in this Province and now he turns around and sticks a knife in their backs.

That, we call hypocrisy at its finest, I say to the minister, hypocrisy. I

assume he would be rushing off to the 4:30 new conference to see what his former

colleagues are going to say today, all the good news they have for this Minister

of Education, all the backslapping they are going to do.

MR. GRIMES: (inaudible) PEI.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister does not understand. He missed

the point. Does the minister not realize that there are jobs over in Prince

Edward Island? They have a great Premier in Prince Edward Island, a Premier who

represents the people in the Province.

MR. GRIMES: You are talking about the GST centre, are

you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. GRIMES: You.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know what you are talking about.

The minister must be confused here. When he hears the word jobs he gets

confused. It is only the loss of jobs that he can identify with and not the

creation of jobs, I say to the minister. You are so long now cutting jobs,

eliminating jobs, and looking for excuses in the Province here, that the

minister does not even know what he is talking about.

The minister talked about bringing in a tax, bringing in a

harmonized sales tax, to eliminate duplication in the system. And here they

bring in a new insurance tax, a new tax on the private sale of vehicles, new tax

collectors to go with the ones - we were going to economize, we were going to

streamline our tax collection system but we did not do it, and we give up jobs

out of this Province to other parts of the country because of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, for what? I say to the minister, for

what? I agree with the minister when I say, for what? Another interesting point

on the harmonization tax we also give up, with a $1 to $1.5 billion Voisey's Bay

development, we have just given up the 12 per cent down to an 8 per cent tax on

the capital assets of Voisey's Bay. We have lost that revenue by a harmonized

tax. We have lost tens of millions of dollars by reducing the sales tax on the

capital assets of Voisey's Bay and we are now only going to collect 8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know nothing about Voisey's Bay.

MR. SULLIVAN: We know a tremendous amount about Voisey's

Bay, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know anything about it because

you are not involved in the meetings and discussions and do not know what is

going on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am assuming the five minutes came out of

the minister's time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East

& Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is unbelievable that after eight years of being in the

House of Assembly I finally have been able to hear a speech whereby a member

actually stood in this House of Assembly and argued about the fact that we

should not lower taxes. Somebody actually stood up and attempted over fifteen or

so minutes to explain to us why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should not see

a reduction in their taxes, they should not come down from 20 per cent to 15 per

cent.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who is doing their research but I

have to tell you whoever it is has sorely let them down. The people of this

Province are ready for a tax reduction, the first tax reduction that we have

seen in this Province since 1949. It is the first time since 1949 that we have

seen taxes go down and what we have is an Opposition who in their own right want

to oppose, searching out for examples that they can thrown in front of a parade

that they believe has started. Well, there is no parade. They have managed to

single out electric utility costs. They have singled out new homes, and they

believe that these are the items that are going to begin the parade throughout

Newfoundland that they can now jump in front of.

They make big mistakes when they do that, because by singling

out certain items they are willing to accept, in their own minds, that the

people of this Province do not realize that we, as a government, have given back

$105 million, have given back $105 million to the people of this Province. That

money will be reinvested in the Province. That money will be spent by the people

because it remains in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how, when they single out certain

items like the building of a new home, the cost of a new home to young couples

who are trying to get started will go up dramatically according to their

numbers. Well allow me to give them the benefit of a doubt that even part of

their analogy is correct. They automatically accept the belief that no one who

builds a new house will buy forks and knives. They believe that Newfoundlanders

will go back to eating with their fingers. They believe that they won't cook in

a pot. They believe that there will be no new dishes go into the house and yes,

if the people who built that new house are lucky they will hold on to the old

crates that they find at the backs of businesses because they won't buy any new

furniture which also tends to happen when you buy a new house. There is always

something new that comes into the new house. They won't accept the fact that

there will be thousands of dollars in savings to those individuals because of

that. They are willing to ignore the fact that people just might go out and buy

something new for their new home. They ignore the fact that the rate has gone

from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

It is also amazing, Mr. Speaker, how they are so quick to

forget that people in this Province actually buy things other than clothing and

pay light bills. They forget the fact that everything from furniture polish to

furniture goes down, from Kleenex to toilet tissue goes down and from what I am

listening to the other side in their speeches so far this afternoon, it sounds

like they have already taken advantage of the reduction on laxatives. I think

they have already taken advantage of that reduction. They forget that people

will buy panty hose at 5 per cent cheaper. They forget that paper towels have

gone down, that record albums have gone down, that pens and pencils that the

students use have gone down, indeed, the paper itself that they use has gone

down. It is so easy to ignore the fact that these items have gone down.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day to help

make up that $105 million that is going back into the economy, anyone in this

Province who is making between $1 and $10,000 will actually see at the end of

the year $185 saving. They will see that. If you are making more money chances

are you will spend more so indeed the savings will go up. Those between $10,000

and $20,000 a year should save at least an additional $190 a year back in their

pockets so that they can reinvest in the community. It is so simple to stand up

and find one, two or three items that you think you can throw out into the

public and that the public are going to be naive enough or indeed, uneducated

enough that they would accept those two or three items. Well the people of this

Province are very aware of the fact that there are $105 million that this

Province will not take out of their pockets this year.

We are also forgetting the fact that businesses themselves

now with flow-through tax will also see a reduction on many items. I have great

faith in the business community and I have great faith in the pressure of the

marketplace itself that those savings will be passed on; that those savings will

be passed on to the individuals. Now some of them are waving some papers over

there showing advertisements that say the price is going up and so on. I think

at the end of the day all those companies will pass on the savings that they are

able to garner themselves because of the flow through.

In selecting items, Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to forget that

in actual fact many food items will go down. Granted, I will give you that the

electrical cost will go up but we will see in the basic overall operation of a

home for a family who is making somewhere in the area of $15,000 there will be

as much as a $1,200 saving in the basic operation of an individuals home. Any

furnishings that they should buy that year, even if they are minimum amounts, in

terms of even spending as much as $550 will see reductions of thirty-five

dollars. Household operations, if some $1,200 are spent, there will be as much

as a ninety-dollar saving in their pockets that they do not have now. Indeed,

including recreation, education, be it private transportation or public

transportation, those costs can and will come down to the individual. One

hundred and five million dollars will remain in the pockets of the taxpayers of

this Province, and for some reason or another, the Opposition and the proponents

for the resolution this afternoon are willing to ignore that.

The speeches that I have heard already today, and I am sure

the ones -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: Oh, no trouble to oppose the resolution. The

resolution is not built on fact, it is built on fiction.

The resolution is not willing to accept the fact that at the

end of the day, that $105 million which will be re-injected into the economy is

money that will remain in the pockets of all of the individuals that they have

been able to list out whether the person is making $10,000 a year, $20,000 a

year or more. Each individual, each family, will, at the end of the day, see

savings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you table those figures.

MR. WALSH: No trouble to table the figures if you wish. I

have some notes on them but I will be happy to table that because that is what I

am quoting from.

What I am saying is, Mr. Speaker, the members who will not

agree with the fact that the HST at the end of the day is a reduction in tax. We

saw taxes go from the 1960s under a previous Liberal Government from

approximately 7 per cent or 6 per cent, we saw the Progressive Conservative

Government drive it to 12 per cent, drive it from what people could live with it

up to 12 per cent. Now I see the same Party or the same group arguing about the

fact that we are actually lowering taxes, arguing with us with the fact that, to

take taxes down is something that we should be ashamed of. Well, we are not. We,

as a government are proud of the fact that we are moving the actual tax from

approximately 20 per cent down to 15 per cent, and by working with our

counterparts in Atlantic Canada they, too, will see the benefits in an actual

fact that it puts us on target with what has been happening in Quebec.

Quebec harmonized their tax immediately when the federal

government put on the GST. They immediately harmonized the tax so, there is not

just three provinces in Canada with a harmonized tax, there are indeed four

provinces with a harmonized tax, all of them fully cognizant with the fact that

at the end of the day, the people who live in their province will have more

disposable income in their pockets, able to purchase more goods and by the mere

fact that $105 million will go back into the economy, one would have to assume

that because of that, we will see some job creation as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, to simply put forward a resolution because

you see a parade that might be forming, to put forward a resolution that you

believe people are going to line up behind, you are being naive in what you

believe the people of this Province understand. The people of this Province are

fully cognizant of the fact that taxes, taxes that they have been spending for

the last eight, ten years are now coming from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

Don't be afraid to allow the people of this Province to enjoy that extra income

that they will now have at their disposal. Don't be afraid to allow the family

whose income is in the neighbourhood of $10,000 a year, don't be afraid or

willing to deprive them of that extra $185 that they will now have in their

pockets to spend.

Why don't you stand and put forward the actual resolution

that you believe in and that is, that the taxes should not be reduced!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: That the taxes should remain at 20 per cent.

Because in reality that is what you are saying!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. WALSH: In reality, that is what you are saying. Leave

the tax at 20 per cent; take as much money as you can from the pockets of

Newfoundlanders. Well I will tell you, we aren't going to do that. We make no

apologies for lowering the taxes in this Province for the first time in forty,

fifty years. We make no apologies for that, and we make no apologies for leaving

money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders, a total of $105 million that they will

now have the opportunity to go out and have additional purchasing power, more

disposable income. We make no apologies for that. We stand behind the decision

because at the end of the day we know that the people of this Province will

fully support the HST and the reduction in the provincial tax. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm

delighted today to be able to get up and speak on this very serious issue, the

HST. The first thing we have to get to is the root of this whole discussion and

debate to begin with. It is directly related to the Member for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island who was just on his feet a few minutes ago. It is the federal

speech for the Member for St. John's East from when the election starts soon,

probably in June.

Because they are going to have to defend this GST, and the

root of this problem came exactly from that. Because this was the government,

the federal government, which stood up and on public radio, public TV, all over

this country, said: We will scrap the GST. That is where the root of this

problem started. That is why Newfoundland and the other two Liberal provinces -

now take note of that, it is quite obvious to me - are the only ones that are

accepting it. As a matter of fact, the previous premier of Prince Edward Island

even tried to duck out as soon as she could and get out of the mess. They

wouldn't accept the Harmonized Sales Tax.

The truth is the root of this whole debate has started with

the federal government which is about to call a federal election, and the Member

for St. John's East, the MP for St. John's East, who the Member for Conception

Bay East & Bell Island will be campaigning for, will have to write her speeches.

Because he started the campaign some few weeks ago when the nomination process

started, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters, when the campaign started back

then. That is what the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island started

talking about. He is getting the speech ready for the Member for St. John's

East.

Because I am going to tell you, the quote made by the Liberal

strategist in Ottawa was to say: Boys, if you think that the GST is not going to

be an issue during the federal election then you are whistling Dixie. Because

nobody believes in this Province or this country that the root of all of this

came from the GST when it said it would promise of being scrapped. Now the

Premier, a former minister with the Chrtien government, sits here in this House

in this Province and says to us: Mr. Chrtien, bring it on down, we will take it

all in for you. Mr. McKenna said the same thing. Mr. Savage over in Nova Scotia

is going to meet his fate very soon. They are going to be picked off one by one

by one, I will guarantee you.

That is the root of the problem, and there is no denying it.

The Minister of Mines and Energy is going to have to run (inaudible). The

Minister of Mines and Energy when he passes the first hurdle and becomes the

official candidate is going to have to go out in June and defend this GST

fiasco, because that is what it is called.

Let's get down to some specifics. I was so surprised that the

Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island absolutely doesn't know anything

about this issue. He doesn't know it. I just had calls this morning from a group

in Stephenville which - as a matter of fact, when I get up to my office there

should be a fax, an example of an electricity bill. She said: Just forget about

all the other issues for a second. She said: The electricity bill. She will fax

it and I will table it in this House if she will allow me, in the next few days,

to show a specific example of how the HST is going to hit home in this Province.

Her bill for this month, she said if she did the

recalculations and went from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, her electricity bill -

not Pampers and things that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island was

talking about - about her electricity bill. Something that everybody in this

Province needs unless you are going to have a windmill out by your door is

electricity. It will have a direct impact on electricity. A necessity, that is

what it is, and it is a shame that the Member for Conception Bay East, or

anybody who supports this bill, the HST, does not see that. It is going to hit

directly in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it comes to

necessities.

What the member should realize is that the low-income people

in this Province, whose disposable income accounts for electricity and

children's clothes and gasoline, and things like that, they are the people who

are going to be hit the hardest with this, and it is not going to stop there. If

people in this House, people in this place here today, believe that it is not

going to impact negatively on the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, they

are in a dream world, they are not living up to reality.

I came up with a specific example in my district of a

low-income family. While the House was closed, I produced a specific example of

a low-income family with an income of $9,300 a year. What we did was calculate

their budget, what they spend on things like electricity, children's clothes and

so on, and that family of two children, with $9,300 a year, the new HST coming

in will bite into their budget anywhere from $500 to $700.

Imagine taking $500 to $700 out of a low-income family in

this Province who earn only just over $9,000 a year. Now, that is not pulled out

of the sky. That is coming directly from a person at whose table I sat and did

up their budget for after the HST comes into effect. Mr. Speaker, they have to

spend money on electricity, they have to spend money on children's clothes, and

they have to put gas in their car. And all these other things you are talking

about, shaving cream and Pampers and pencils and so on - I am talking about

necessities. Every day you wake up, and every night you go to bed, you need

electricity. That is where it is going to hit the most and that is where, after

this is all over, people are going to sit back and say: Now we know where it

hit.

This lady who called me this morning from Stephenville -

representing, by the way, a group of people who are going to send me their

electricity bills - said: Forget about all the other ones you are talking about.

Look at this one, electricity, something we have to use every day. That is where

people are going to be hit - right between the eyes. And every member in this

House, who may be better off than a lot of people in this Province, they are

going to be really affected when they get down to their budgets. And when you

sit down with a family that has a $10,000 income and they start to look at their

electricity bill for the month and all of a sudden they are losing - this lady

in particular said $44 extra a month on her electricity bill. She has electric

heat. Everything in her house is electric. That is the person who is going to be

most negatively affected.

I also had a call today from my own district from a business

person who is so confused about this that he thinks he is going to be shutting

down his business. As a matter of fact, he guaranteed me he would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Proper thing. So he should (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The minister says: So he should close down

his business. Now, what kind of an attitude is that from a minister of a

government in the House of Assembly here today? What an attitude, that he should

close down his business.

I guess the lady who used electricity in her home should get

a windmill for her lawn also, and when she goes to buy her children's clothes

she should go and get second-hand clothes.

The minister, by the way, referred to long-term effect and

this government - it will come back on them, there is no doubt about it, if the

minister wants to talk about long-term. What happens in two years from now when

the compensation money runs out for this transition phase, and the coffers of

this Province - the government, trying to balance their budgets and do

everything for health care, do not have that income; that we are down from 12

per cent to 8 per cent. Then how are you going to answer to your budget?

What was the answer from the Minister of Finance when we

asked him that: What is going to happen in two years from now? He said: We are

going to be into a boom then - things are going to be happening in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray for everybody's sake that he is

right, because if he is not we are going to be in a lot of trouble. We might be

walking into a Budget tomorrow that we might be able to get through, but I am

going to tell you that he is not going to be able to walk through a budget in

two years time if this boom that we are talking about does not happen.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious stuff, and the best thing to do,

any time you make changes that are this dramatic, is to consult with people who

are going to be affected the most.

I know some members in here, on both sides of the House, by

the way, who have talked to some people, common-Joe people with low incomes and

so on, and if they look at their budget and see where the HST is going to affect

them, it is going to impact upon the necessities of their lives, not the fur

coats and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Corner Brook a little while ago and do

you know what was for sale in the paper? Do you know what was for sale in the

Western Star ? There was a sale on pre-arranged funerals. Come, pre-arrange

your funeral now. So, it is going to be cheaper to die and more expensive to

live. That is what it comes down to. Imagine, advertising for pre-arranged

funerals. `Come, save on the HST', the advertisement said. `Come, save on the

HST and pre-arrange your funeral today'. What kind of advertising... What are we

coming to in this Province, when we are going to have pre-arranged funerals now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you sign up?

MR. SHELLEY: Electricity bills, low income - no, I did

not sign up, Mr. Speaker. I plan to live for a long time yet and hopefully by

that time we will switch around this and scrap this HST and do something

sensible like bring in a harmonized tax or a tax that we have always said we

could agree on, one single tax.

The leader also acknowledged it and I agree with it but I am

just saying it is a wrong one. It is a wrong deal with the federal cousins in

Ottawa that we are going to go from 12 per cent down to 8 per cent to the

coffers of this Province while the GST stays the same. The GST, the 7 per cent

is still the same, Mr. Speaker. That is what bugs me about this whole process.

The government basically caved in. The Premier of the day, a good colleague of

the Prime Minister, went to Ottawa and he caved in. He said: Whatever it is,

`Jean', we will take it. `Jean' said: You reduce your tax from 12 per cent to 8.

The Premier said: No problem. What about the HST, `Jean'? `Jean' said: No, we

are going to leave that as is. We cannot change that. We cannot change the

coffers in Ottawa. You cannot expect us to do that, but we want you to do it

`Brian' because I know you will do whatever we ask.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough, because what is

going to happen in the short term, first of all, is that people who have to

spend money on electricity and children's clothes and whatever, are going to be

the people affected by it. And I still say that in the long term if we do not

see this boom and, Mr. Speaker, I hope we do. I hope we do not have to get up

and complain one little bit, that Voisey's Bay is going to give us everything,

that Hibernia is going to flow and that we can stand up in this Province and the

Minister of Finance can stand up in two years and say, we have balanced the

budget. There is an increase to health care, so that we can take on the extra

burden in health care. Our social programs are okay and our balanced budget is

good. Now, Mr. Speaker, if he can do that and it is on record here today, in

1998, like the Minister of Finance said, I will be the first to stand and

applaud and congratulate the minister, but what if it does not? Mr. Speaker,

from an economist point of view there is a good chance it will not.

In two years when this $340 million compensation for us

taking this hit runs out - and it is going to run out pretty fast, Mr. Speaker,

the economy of this Province will have to grow by some 55 per cent to compensate

for the losses that we are going to have in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker,

that is a scary thought. What I believe we are doing is gambling and it is a big

gamble. The HST was brought in quietly under the demise of the GST in this

Province. There is no hoopla. It went to Ottawa very quietly, Mr. Speaker. There

is not a lot of noise about it, and they agreed and so did the Liberal Premier

of New Brunswick. So did the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia but who else did,

Mr. Speaker? Did Alberta? Did Ontario? Did B.C.? Did Quebec? No, they did not,

Mr. Speaker. Do you know why they did not, Mr. Speaker? For one simple fact,

they said: Mr. Prime Minister, you got yourself in this mess; you get yourself

out of this mess.

What we are seeing here today, on March 19, is trying to get

this done, covered up, finished with before the Member for St. John's East and

maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy hit the campaign trail in June and say we

have satisfied it, we have harmonized the sales tax. That is what is going on. I

know what is going on. People know what's going on, too, and politically I

guess, politicians hope they will listen. Let us get this done with now in

March. By the time you hit the trail people will forget all about Chrtien

saying he was going to scrap the GST because you will not see it, it will be HST

here. But, Mr. Speaker, let me forewarn the members of the federal Liberal Party

that it will not go away.

The quote in the Globe and Mail from the Liberal

strategist in Ottawa, who very bluntly said, `If there is any Liberal federal

candidate ready to run in this next election and he thinks the GST will not be

an issue, he had better think again. Because, Mr. Speaker, people are not that

stupid and naive anymore. I do not believe they forget that fast. I believe,

what you are going to see is that people in this Province, in Nova Scotia and in

New Brunswick are going to say: Hold on Chrtien, you did not fool us. You said

you were going to scrap the GST. It is not scrapped. As a matter of fact,

besides not scrapping the GST you just added insult to injury. The truth is, now

you are hitting us worse.

Who are they hitting, Mr. Speaker? To make sure people get

elected, to make sure he covers up the GST scam, who is going to get hurt the

most? The low-income and middle-income people in this Province, the people who

look through their budget every month - and some of these families that have two

people even, working, who look through their budget every month. They go down

through and the first bill, their monthly electricity rate, that is the first

thing they go through, Mr. Speaker, and there is no denying it. There is not a

member who can get up here today and say that no - forget about all the other

issues we talked about. Just ask a person, `How is your electricity bill going

to be affected?' It goes from 7 per cent to 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

The lady today who called me representing this group said

that her bill would increase by forty-four dollars a month just because we

decided to harmonize the sales tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred dollars a year.

MR. SHELLEY: Five hundred dollars a year, the member just

worked out. Imagine, $500 because we are going to cover up the GST in this HST

racket, and that is what it is all about, it is at the root of it all, Mr.

Speaker. Never mind things like shaving cream and if your child takes

part in

recreational hockey and those things, they all go up, too, Mr. Speaker. The fact

is, that this lady who called me this morning and other people are asking: What

is going on with this HST? We do not know very much about it. And we raised the

questions here in the House but the truth is, the media had not even reported on

most of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: The media had not reported on it for some

strange reason. I do not know why that is, I guess it is bought off like

everything else in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some strange reason.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. Some strange reason, Mr.

Speaker, I say to the minister. The truth is, the GST is at the root of this, it

started, and the truth is again, that there is a federal election coming up,

they want to make sure that the Prime Minister can say: Oh look, we have solved

it, there is no GST in Newfoundland now, they have their harmonized sales tax.

It should not be called harmonized sales tax, the HST, it should be called

hidden sales tax or hide the GST is what it should be called. Because the

low-income people in this Province will be the ones to pay and the Province, as

a whole, will be the ones to pay in the long term if this Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board and this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: - (inaudible) to ninety-eight, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few, brief comments with respect to the

private member's motion that is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have been having great

difficulty on this side of the House in trying to get some consistent message

from the Opposition, particularly through the Leader, as to where they really

stand on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that even in the private

member's motion that is before us today, even now, there continues to be

confusion in terms of the view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on

behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I take it, in what they want to

propose. Because in fact, Mr. Speaker, in one voice, the Leader says when asked

- because I asked him several times myself: Do they really believe there should

be a single tax? The answer is: Yes, they believe there should be a single tax.

Do they think then, that a harmonized tax is the right approach? Yes, they think

the harmonized or single tax is the right approach but it is just that this one

is wrong because, I guess, we thought it up.

Now, if they thought it up it would be a bit different, I

suppose, it would be okay. So they like the idea but, in the meantime, when

questioned further, he says: No, do not do it at all right now, because by doing

this he acknowledges that we are going to leave $105 million in the hands of

individuals to choose to spend it how they see fit. It is $105 million less that

the government will take in. So his approach, when questioned further along that

line is: the government should keep that money and use it to help poor families

and put it into health care, and help with school lunch programs and keep all

the parks open, do not privatize any. Because everything that comes up, they

want to keep everything the way it is. I think that they do understand that the

government, no matter whether it would be them or us, do not have the money to

keep everything exactly the same as the way it is in the government system

today.

I believe they even admit from time to time that they

understand that, but still for all, no matter what the cause and no matter what

the issue, they want everything left unchanged. So with respect to this issue

you get the double-talk and the double-speak from the Leader of the Opposition

in whose name this particular private member's motion is here saying: We believe

in a single tax but we do not believe this is the right one and we do not

believe you should do it now. So what he is telling Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians is that the official position of the Opposition Party is that they

do not believe that the basic tax structure for consumable goods in Newfoundland

and Labrador should decrease from 19.84 per cent to 15 per cent.

He is stating on behalf of that party that if they were the

government, they would leave the sales tax, the combined sales tax in

Newfoundland and Labrador at 19.84 per cent. And the researcher they have

working for them, who used the line first, I believe, on an Open Line Show where

I heard about it: will reduce the tax on a fur coat and put up the tax on

children's clothing; it is a nice catchy line, it has a bit of a ring to it. But

the reality is, you can pick an example like that, Mr. Speaker, but somehow,

somewhere along the way, there is a government that is saying: We will go to

this harmonized tax regime on April 1 and leave $105 million in the hands of

individual consumers.

Whether people choose to believe it or not, the officials in

the Department of Finance and elsewhere are professionals in this area, trained

in this area. Tax deliberations and so on are what they do, they have degrees in

this area, and they are accountants by nature. They are not Open Line critics

who become researchers for the Opposition and pretend to have an expertise in

just about anything, as long as the expertise concludes that no matter what the

issue and no matter what the proposal of this government, it is wrong. The only

criterion you need now to do research for the Opposition in this House of

Assembly is to come up with a conclusion that no matter what the issue is,

whether it is a social policy, whether it is a fiscal matter, whether it is a

very minor individual decision, whatever this government decides to do, the

research has to conclude that it is wrong.

I know we are wrong sometimes, but I have not yet met anybody

in my life who is wrong 100 per cent of the time. I have not met too many people

who are right 100 per cent of the time. But the researcher for the group over

there - and she gave copious notes to the Leader of the Opposition today. He got

a little bit sidetracked, he tried to make up some of his own statements, so I

fear he had to leave the Legislature and go upstairs because they are having

quite the racket up there now, I am sure of it - that he came down here and

actually strayed from the notes that were prepared by the researcher and he got

it all convoluted.

As a matter of fact, to make the point with respect to the

confusion and where they will not give a clear answer as to where they stand -

they think there should be a single tax, not this one; they think taxes should

go down, but not now, they have to stay at 19.84 per cent, even in the motion

itself, in one of the `Whereases' - it would break their heart to write a

`Whereas' even acknowledging that some items must be going to decrease in price

if there is going to be $105 million left in the hands of individuals. Even if

it happens to be a person who bought a fur coat, or a car, they are going to

keep some money. I mean, these are individuals in our society, too. They are

going to keep some money.

The analysis by the people who work for the government, some

of the same people who used to work for the members opposite, or people of that

party when they were in government, some of the same officials have done an

analysis saying that comparing all income levels there is a savings in this

particular tax change.

In the motion itself they could not put in any `Whereas' that

says:

Whereas some prices will decrease. No mention of that.

Whereas some prices

will go up,

whereas this will happen. Then it says: "whereas the chairperson of

the Senate of Canada Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has publicly urged

the participating provinces to enact a provincial rebate system similar to that

enacted by the Federal Government with respect to the Goods and Services Tax."

That is in the

preamble to the motion, suggesting that they probably think that

is a good idea, that there should be an HST rebate just like there is a GST

rebate.

But then, instead of following on and supporting that, they

propose something different. They use as part of the `Whereas' in building the

motion that they really like this notion of a provincial rebate system similar

to the GST rebate, but they do not then say:

Be it resolved that we have a

provincial HST rebate. That is not what the motion is. They praise up the rebate

system in the motion, and then they resolve that we should not have a rebate

here, though. It is a good idea. The Senate Committee says we should think about

it. But because their researcher concludes that even though the Senate Committee

says is a good idea that we should have a rebate, their proposal is that we

should have a provincial annual income supplement.

Now, that is a different creature from a tax rebate. They are

completely different creatures. Income supplements applied means that they are

applied to families that may never access a tax rebate system because they might

not be impacted by it at all. A tax rebate for any tax is a very different

creature from a general income supplement program. So again, even in the motion

of the Leader of the Opposition, they do not know for sure what they want,

whether they want a tax rebate or whether they want some kind of annual, general

income supplement program. They have to make up their own minds, so, I guess,

maybe they will go back and see what happens and have another discussion of it,

and before the end of the day the leader might come down and even amend his own

motion for all I know, because he has been that ambiguous and unclear about what

he is proposing at this point in time that it would not surprise me at all if

that happened before the end of the day.

The impact on families, again, just for the record. The work

done through the Finance Department indicated that families with incomes less

than $10,000 a year, which are the working poor and families on social

assistance, their average annual sales tax saving as a result, from a generally

applied consumption tax that is at 19.84 per cent that goes down to 15 per cent,

as indicated by my colleague the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island,

before, the first consumption tax decrease in Newfoundland and Labrador since

Confederation, that it shows in the analysis done on a typical basket of goods

that a family would purchase in the run of a year, that the annualized savings

for families below $10,000 would be $185 as a result of the change in this tax.

Now, the indication given by the Minister of Finance is that

they will still further study the notion as to whether or not, because some

people have questioned that particular part of the analysis, whether or not

there could possibly be some questions with respect to that analysis that was

given by the officials, and if there seems to be an error in some way, that he

will certainly consider -and he has been on the public record as saying, he

would consider making some kind of a statement in the Budget, which will happen

tomorrow, as to whether or not there needs to be some kind of attention paid to

that particular issue.

There is nobody on this side of the House that wants to

impose any particular hardship on the lowest income earners, and the poorest

amongst us in Newfoundland and Labrador. The rest of the ranges clearly show

that income ranges from $10,000 to $20,000 show an annualized saving of $190,

$20,000 to $30,000 $370, and so on. So, it showed in the analysis that was done,

and was shared with all the Cabinet and all the caucus on this side of the

House, that every income level would be a beneficiary, and that is why there is

$105 million left in the hands of the consumers and not in the hands of the

government.

But, now, again in the confusion the Leader of the Opposition

stands up in one breath and says, do not bring this change in on April 1. I have

heard him make the point myself several times, that the government should change

its mind altogether. We should scrap it and we should not have HST, a harmonized

sales tax on April 1. He is saying it is the wrong one, because we are doing it,

of course, and not them. They would do something but they have no idea what it

really is. We should not do it at all. We should leave the $105 million not in

the hands of individuals but government should take it. That is what he is on

the record as saying, that government should take the $105 million and keep it.

We should not lower the tax at all, but in the meantime while he states that

publicly, while he has said it here in this Legislature in his

preamble to

questions in Question Period, while he has said it in speeches around the

Province in places like Grand Falls - Windsor when he went out and laid out the

party's platform that nobody listens to because they know he will not be the

leader in the next election.

There is no point in listening to him because he will not

even be around for goodness sake. If they want any chance at all of trying to

win he will not be around. Instead of then putting a motion in saying, scrap the

HST and leave the sales tax combined at 19.84 per cent, which is what he says in

his speeches, he turns around here and brings in a motion which says: urge the

government to enact a provincial annual income supplement to offset the

consequences of the implementation of the HST. Now, he is telling us in this

motion to go ahead and do it. He says, go ahead and bring in the HST but bring

in an income supplement program with it.

Again, he is saying, not only in the motion is he saying two

different things, but in all of his public representation on the issue he says

two completely different things again. One being leave the tax system alone,

government should take the money; keep the $105 million. The only way you can

keep the $105 million, by the way, is to not have a harmonized sales tax. If

government is going to keep the $105 million we cannot have a harmonized sales

tax of any description, so that is the official position of the Leader of the

Opposition when he speaks.

Maybe that is what he is saying when he says it by himself. I

do not know if this is what he believes himself or if this is what his policy

analysts believe, but one or the other they are confused. When he speaks for

himself he either says, bring in an income supplement or he says do not do it.

One of them he is saying for himself and the other one he says because he is up

now trying to mend the big rift with the policy advisor, because he insulted the

policy advisor today by actually varying from the notes he was given and

blurting out some things that he thought himself. So there is an awful racket

going up upstairs at this point, and I hope he is in good enough shape to come

back and conclude the debate later on.

We are so confused about what he is really proposing that I

would expect the Government House Leader is going to suggest we vote against it

for the time being because there are two things presented in this motion. One is

a rebate system; the other one is an income supplement program, which is

different, and there is another public statement by the Leader of the Opposition

saying that we should not do it at all; we should keep the money; we should keep

the $105 million.

So when we get clearer direction from the Leader of the

Opposition as to which of the three things they would really like for us to

consider, and which of the three, if any - because there might be a fourth or

fifth thing by then - that they would ever do if they ever became the

government, then we might be able to vote for it. But right now we are so

confused that we really cannot deal with this, and I am sure the Government

House Leader is going to suggest that this side of the House vote against the

motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might have a new policy advisor, which

would give him a new direction.

MR. GRIMES: This is very true, too. The other thing is,

following the meeting that is going on at this point in time, we will either

probably have a new leader in the House or a vacant seat, or we might even have

a new policy advisor for the Opposition, because I think really they are

short-changing themselves. They should let their policy advisor go back to

full-time on the Open Line where she had a bit of credibility, because now when

she phones up everybody knows that she is a paid, hired mouthpiece for the

Progressive Conservative Party. Therefore she cannot have the great credibility

she had before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

opportunity to make these few comments with respect to the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion

before the House today with respect to an attempt to ameliorate the consequences

of the new Liberal government GST, which they have renamed the HST.

This motion, I support wholeheartedly. It is a good social

democratic motion. It represents recognition of the non-inequitable effect of

the HST on lower income people. I have to say that I am shocked to hear comments

from members opposite, particularly the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell

Island, who never once addressed the burden of this motion that there is, in

fact, an attempt here to decrease the consequences to lower income people for

the consequences of the increases that are going to be caused by this tax.

I am very surprised that the Minister of Education would

defend an allegation that this tax is going to benefit everybody. He says he has

an analysis. Yes, he says, he has an analysis and a study that has been shared

with the members opposite in caucus - it has not been tabled in this House -

that alleges that people who are earning $10,000 or less will save an average of

$160 on this tax, based on a bundle of goods and services that are purchased by

people in that income group.

Mr. Speaker, I defy this government to lay that analysis on

the Table of this House for inspection, because I do not think it is possible to

justify what they have said.

Let me give an example. A family who lives on $10,000 has

$850 a month to spend, less than that, less than $850 a month to spend. Now,

what do they spend it on? I suspect they spend a few hundred dollars on rent. I

suspect they spend perhaps $300 or $350 on rent. No HST on that, no GST on that,

no PST on that. No difference, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that they spend several

hundred dollars a month on food. Unless they have other plans to amend this act

I don't think there is going to be any HST on food. So I don't see any affect on

the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I suspect if they have a nutritious food

basket, Mr. Speaker, they have to spend at least $100 a week on food for a

family of four. No GST on that. I suspect that if they are like everybody else

they have to heat their house, and they are either going to use electricity or

they are going to use fuel. What do you find? You find that there is an increase

of 8 per cent on fuel and an increase of 8 per cent on electricity. So how do we

find a savings of $160?

The Member for Baie Verte talked about a family with a

heating bill from electricity where the increase is going to be $44 a month. If

that family earns less than $10,000 a year, where is the family going to save?

That increase, that $500 increase annually, where is that going to be saved to

net them out a $160 gain?

I don't buy it, not for one minute. The study, or the alleged

study, or the alleged analysis, that has been talked about in this House, never

been presented, never shown us the breakdown, never tabled in this House; hiding

behind some figures that have never been revealed to the public because they

can't stand up to scrutiny. They can't stand up to scrutiny because they aren't

factually accurate.

There is no question that a family that is on an income less

than $10,000 a year is going to have an increased burden as a result of having

to pay an increase of 8 per cent on goods and services that are now going to be

attracted by this tax. If the government believed otherwise - and other

governments have said this too, by the way, this is not the only government that

has tried to make the case. The Government of New Brunswick has tried to make

the case that everybody is going to gain. The Government of Nova Scotia has done

the same thing. But none of them, just like this government, have ever tabled

the analysis, the breakdown, of what goods and services go into this mix to make

the alleged decrease.

I know there are some ambiguities in the position that the

Progressive Conservative Party has taken. Their national party introduced the

GST, so I understand that. I understand there are some ambiguities and

ambivalence about that. I know from members opposite, including the Government

House Leader, they have a sore spot about this issue, because they all

campaigned with the `silent seven' last year. They all worked hard to elect the

`silent seven' to Ottawa on this kill the GST platform. The Member for St.

John's West was out there working for Jean Payne last year, insisting that she

be elected on a kill the GST. Three years ago in 1993 the Member for St. John's

West was out knocking on doors trying to elect Jean Payne to go to Parliament

and to fight, to go to Parliament and to implement the Red Book, along with

Sheila Copps, to rid the country of the GST. I know the Member for St. John's

West was out there knocking on doors for Jean Payne last time, convinced that

Jean and the other `silent six' who got elected were going to rid the country of

the GST.

I know it is a sore spot for members opposite, having worked

hard to elect those people who in 1993 went to Ottawa on a mandate to get rid of

the GST. I know that they get upset when people remind them of that. They do not

want to be reminded of the fact that they elected the `silent seven' to Ottawa

to do nothing to stop the decrease in revenues to this Province, to do nothing

to stop the destruction of the Canada Assistance Plan, to do nothing to stop the

destruction of the established programs in financing, to do nothing to defend

the needs of the people of the Atlantic Province of Newfoundl